mailing list archives
Re: Buffer overflow prevention
From: stealth <stealth () segfault net>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 19:55:30 +0200
On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 11:41:18AM +0200, Peter Busser wrote:
The only way to sleep quietly in fact is to feed your computer to a shredder.
Yes, indeed. But if you install PaX and all the other nice and really
usefull things out there I think you can sleep pretty well. I mean
all the bypassing for the really hard stuff (PaX, gr, SELinux)
is really theoretical from what I have seen. I really want to see
that guy (or girl? :) that exploits a GR'ed box remotely where the
target box runs single-service and well audited code. You do not
have to fear that person that gets into it, and you will probably never know
(s)he was there, so who cares?
Not speaking about user-shells, trojans on client-systems and social engenering
contains millions of lines of code. Auditing this amount of code is simply
impossible. Furthermore, auditors are humans. Humans make mistakes, not only
when they are programmers, but also when they are auditors. So audited code
will still contain security bugs.
In fact, the amount of security in OpenBSD is only slightly less horrible than
that of most *NIX operating systems (which includes Adamantix for that matter).
The Adamantix Project
Taking trustworthy software out of the labs, and into the real world
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Thomas Sjögren (Aug 14)
Re: Buffer overflow prevention Shaun Clowes (Aug 15)
- Re: Buffer overflow prevention, (continued)